Health Care's 13 Tyrants

We do not live in a functioning democracy - republican, direct, or otherwise. You don't have to look at the 2000 election to know that - as I've discussed before, you can just look at the basic mathematics of the U.S. Senate, which gives the same representation to 600,000 people in Wyoming that it gives to tens of millions of people in California (and that says nothing of the filibuster, either). And, as my newspaper column today shows, American tyranny - that is, America's lack of democracy - is now distorting the health care debate.

Right now, we're watching six U.S. senators (from some of the most sparsely populated states) and seven Commerce Committee Blue Dog Democrats hijack the health care debate. Together, these 13 tyrants represent just 13 million people - or 4 percent of the total population. And they are obstructing a health care bill for the other 300 million of us.

I ran the numbers on these districts and states - and there's some particularly interesting things to note.

First, the Congressional Black Caucus is right - it's not a coincidence that the people holding up health care are not only themselves all white, but represent disproportionately undiverse districts. In all, these districts have about half the African-American and Latino populations as the country at large. Put another way, the districts and states whose representatives are obstructing health care disproportionately under-represent two major communities with a particularly vested interest in health care reform.

On the other hand, these districts and states are also disproportionately poor. The average poverty rate of the states/districts of the 13 tyrants are higher and the per capita income lower than the national average. That should give these folks a particular interest in health care reform, considering that reform will disproportionately help constituents who can't afford health care.

Except, that gets us to campaign contributions. As you'll see in the column, the mix of legalized bribery and a tyrannical system that lets the very few legislate for the very many can easily make legislators vote against their own districts' interests.

Read the whole column here to see how it all works.

The column relies on grassroots support - and because of that support, it is getting wider and wider circulation (a big thank you to all who have helped with that). So if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

Comments

[AngryOhioan]

"represent two major communities with a particularly vested interest in health care reform."

Is everything about race? Why is it more important for those 'communities'? You say that the people in those districts are lower income so if you aren't talking about access for poor people what are you talking about? Why does every debate on huffpo degenerate into 'if you disagree with me you are a racist'?

[David Gregg]

Hey calirighty. NO. Giving more tax dollars to lightly populated states is NOT the same as giving to the poor. Not only is it not "EXACTLY" the same, they are completely different situations. Listen, your attitude is exactly what is wrong with America today. You only think of YOU. MY tax dollars. If it's everyone for himself, society will fall apart. Ubuntu! Ever heard of it? Look it up!

[Pleneras]

Thanks again for another wonderful article Mr. Sirota. I leave you with the Jefferson & Franklin quotes

"The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." The ultimate powers in a society, therefore, rest in the people themselves, and they should exercise those powers, either directly or through representatives, in every way they are competent and that is practicable."

"I consider the source of authority with us to be the Nation. Their will, declared through its proper organ, is valid till revoked by their will declared through its proper organ again also." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:301

[mbaty]

I think we are well aware that our political leaders are being bribed by lobbyists. And I'm sure most of them don't see it as bribes, but rather, contributions for consideration...
And I think most of us realize that there is a lot of money to be lost by those corporate interests who have large profits tied to the health care industry.
At this point, though, those of us who are not being bought off don't care. We don't care if every health insurance company goes under. We are ready for real health care reform, and we don't see the excuses about money as being valid. We are spending, as a nation, enough money in several months to maintain our Middle-East occupations as would be needed to cover everyone in America for a very long time. On top of that, we have been throwing money at the banks and bailing out every financial institution that asks for it--and all of it adds to our so-called "national debt."
The purpose of government should be a distribution tool for the peoples' shared wealth. As a distribution tool for our shared wealth it should provide the guarantee that no one is to go without food, water, shelter, or health care if they don't want to. That might not equal luxury, but it does equal a greater degree of compassion. And based upon the enormous figures being thrown at the military and the banks, we know there is enough money.

[nevergiveup]

Right on!

[cripes]

Blood suckers!

[bigskydem]

Steffie Woolhandler at the Colorado Health Care Reform symposium

Public option may force people to stay with a private health insurance plan that you can't afford.

Private insurance industry a "race to the bottom" forcing healthy people into health insurance programs and forcing sick people out.

http://www.coloradohealth.org/uploadedFiles/Multimedia/WoolhandlerPodcast.mp3

Please listen to this. Consider what single payer can do for this country.

[scotia626]

the us has the best health care technology and the worst health care system in the developed world. yet no one seems to understand that both of these facts can be true and are true. and the system, as it is designed, benefits those who can charge premium prices for unneeded services. and this keeps many physicians very very rich- and empties the pockets of the wealthy and the well-insured while health in general actually declines. it is a very sad state of affairs made sadder that those that have the most to gain- everyone that is- are silenced by fear and mis-information.

[Gorsegrower]

The only adequate solution is to remove Congress - both houses - and let the people themselves make the decisions. That will end corruption.

[MNinWI]

ouch-read the history of populism-ain't pretty.

[jmpurser]

Right. The California system cause it worked so well for them...

[gimpysk]

I am blown away by the ignorance of those posting here who think the Senate gives too much power to small states. You are deciding that it's okay to marginalize every American that doesn't live in New York, Illinois, Texas or Florida. So much for the "United" States.

[tralfas]

People are not denied health insurance or health care. That is a fact. Just like nobody is denied food, a house, a car, a TV, etc.. All of these costs money.

[PNG]

tralfas:

You don't have a clue how right (or 'right' ?) you are!

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/diagnosis-reform.html

Who is receiving that money (as of June 25th):
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/-name-office-party-health.html

..where I stand on 'party affiliation' , and other other politicos:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/pelosi-health-insurance-c_n_247924.html?page=4&show_comment_id=28041922#comment_28041922

[tralfas]

Healthcare is not a right, just as food and a home are not rights. That doesn't mean they are not valuable and needed, it simply means it is not the government's job to provide them. We have a simple but fundamental disagreement on the role of government.

[EngineerBill]

So if you die because you can't afford food or health care it wasn't because you were denied it?

[tralfas]

Correct. Just like if I die because I can't afford an experimental surgical procedure. Just like if I die because when I am 90 and under medicare the gov't says that I should simply get painkillers instead of a pacemaker.

[tralfas]

David you are forgetting that it is the United STATES of America. Without the system as it is currently, states like NY and CA would trump the interests of smaller states. You do have representation relative to population in the house. I would suggest that instead of trying to recreate the system because you don't like the results, you should try to pass a better bill.

[kgb999]

Fair enough, give them (us - I'm in Idaho) an equal vote. Just don't put 'em in charge of important committees!

there is no way we the people in smaller states can ever compete with the millions that special interests pour in - it doesn't help us any to empower these guys to be lobby-doll­ar-hoovers­. Cut 'em off. America will be better off, and so will the people in smaller states.

[nevergiveup]

It would be nice if the GOP was interested in collaborating on health insurance reform.

It would be nice if health insurance companies weren't throwing millions of dollars (I believe it's about six or seven million so far just for the Blow Dogs) at congress men and women.

It would be nice if Americans cared about each other as much as they care about their tax cuts, their righteous beliefs (you are amazingly pompous in your thinking), their guns, their religion and their status.

That's a log time coming if you are an example of how Americans are thinking these days.

I personally believe that people are good and care about each other--unlike you.

[newleaf]

"it would be nice if Americans cared about each other as much as they care about their tax cuts, religious beliefs, and guns." PURE BEAUTY. Thank you for that.

[PNG]

This article doesn't go far enough. Please view these links.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/diagnosis-reform.html

Who is receiving that money (as of June 25th):
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/-name-office-party-health.html

[nightwind928]

Population issues aside, the idea of two representatives from each state was clearly thought out a long time ago by the founding fathers. It was done to keep the states with the larger populations from imposing an unfair mandate on those from lesser populated states. If you set aside the issue of slavery leading up to1860, it was this practice that was so unpopular that it led to secession and the civil war. The problem is that legalized corruption is the business of Washington. Greed is the the god of many politicians and the people they are supposed to represent are forgotten when it comes to money and power. There are many good people who have the peoples interest at heart but those who don't need to be culled out, exposed for what they truly are and shown the door. The problem isn't Quantity of representation, it's Quality of representation. Big Business runs Washington now as we witnessed in the Wall Street bailout. Lobbying in Washington is the curse of those of us at the grassroots level and should be outlawed. Call it what it is...legalized bribery and those who succumb to it are nothing more than elected thieves.

[FaceReality2]

"Lobbying in Washington is the curse of those of us at the grassroots level and should be outlawed."

Unfortunately, lobbying is a First Amendment right (the right to petition the govt). Here's an idea. Let's really legalize bribery and put each politician's vote on a bill on Ebay. That way ordinary citizens would at least have a chance at competing against corporations for their politicians' votes.

Of course we could amend the Constitution to outlaw lobbying by commercial interests. Or, just as likely, we could sprout wings and fly to Valhalla.

[kgb999]

I don't think the First Amendment promises the right to serve as a bagman delivering money to congress. I'll have to check again, but I'm pretty sure that's not in there.

[Snowball]

So instead, we have a minority imposing its will upon the majority. How is that fair?

[CTtransplant]

Spread the word!!!

Look, I don't know if the rest of you are as fed up as I am with the obstruction and political game playing going on with this health care reform...but I DO know this - the Republican obstructionists and the Blue Dog Dems have absolutely NO clue what the rest of us are going through with healthcare. Maybe it's time they did!

If you agree, please sign the petition below, and forward it - any way you can - to anyone and everyone you know! Time to let them know how we feel!!!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html

[Jim Jaffe - Huffpost Blogger]

this is quite wonderful, sorta like rats jumping onto a sinking ship in terms of newsworthiness. usually the losers complain that the game is rigged and demand that the rules be changed, but here we see a situation where the winners -- those who about to enact significant healthcare reform -- nonetheless complain that the rules are unfair. leaving aside the basic lapses of fact, like alleging that the Senate has delegated the job to the Finance Committee and totally ignoring the bill reported by the HELP Committee, this assumes that the game will end in frustration, which is not an atypical liberal posture.

[PNG]

Really? If only that applied to the likes of me, then your argument would have weight..oh..and if weren't for this as well...

The latest amounts of monies delivered by lobbyists to kill Health Care Reform (illusionary as the 'reform' might be):
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/diagnosis-reform.html

Who is receiving that money (as of June 25th):
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/-name-office-party-health.html

..where I stand on 'party affiliation' , and other other politicos:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/pelosi-health-insurance-c_n_247924.html?page=4&show_comment_id=28041922#comment_28041922

..I am officially affiliated with NO party, for they are merely two branches of the same tree.

[kgb999]

So a messed up system should only be addressed if the party in power fails to accomplish a legislative objective as a result? That is an amazingly cynical position to support.

I think it's possible to both pass health care reform AND address the undue influence money wielded by corporate lobbyists has in swaying lawmaker's votes against the interest (and in many cases actual desires) of the majority of their constituents.

[Lavina]

David, I read your entire piece. I agree that Congress has been bought off, and I don't think, that we can fix this problem by electing more and giving more money to Democrats, except on an individual basis. (Kucinich is on the "peoples' side.) I don't see being able to fix this problem without going to a third party. Most Congressmen just want to keep those cushy jobs and will not vote for government funded elections. The majority in Congress are for weakening Medicare; so we're sunk. It would be better if this bunch does nothing. Here is where the "Do no harm" slogan works. Obama has, I think, already, set up a plutocratic committee to see where cuts can be made in Medicare. Part D is just a "give away to HMO's and drug companies. I don't trust these people with anything other than a Single Payer plan, if they would do that.

We learned in the Frontline film about health care around the world, that "the public option" doesn't provide enough funds. I'm afraid the result of " a public option" here, would destroy Medicare. Some would like to see that.

We need to wait for a Congress, that will have " the general good" in mind, and what we need is a Single Payer, (everybody in, nobody out) system. If I remember Michael Moore's exploration into this field, correctly, the French were, all, happy with their system.

[LindaLouS]

We will never see a Congress that has "the general good" in mind until we have serious campaign fund reform; whereby "no corporation interest" is allowed to donate campaign funds (i.e. lobbyists). Corporations do not cast votes and therefore should not be allowed to donate funds to a particular candidate. And/or - all campaign donations (for a particular candidate), go to the candidates party, and, each and every candidate receives the exact same amount to run their campaigns on. Until lobbyist money is deemed as unlawful to a particular candidate and until elections cannot be bought and sold for favors to corporate/industry interests "we the people" have no hope of being lawfully represented by our elected officials.